ABP Technical Background (Europe) English Final

Advanced Base Plate
Technical Background
File Technical background. Advance Base plate
E @hilti.com
Tuesday, 02 April 2019
D
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Component Based Finite Element Method ........................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Rigid base plates: problems when designing base plates today .............................................................. 6
1.3 Advance base plate design in PROFIS Engineering........................................................................................ 9
1.3.1 Rigid ....................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 Flexible ................................................................................................................................... 11
2 Flexible design: CBFEM components................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Material model for steel ......................................................................................................................................... 14
2.1.1 Plate model ............................................................................................................................ 14
2.1.2 Mesh convergence................................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Anchors ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Anchors with stand-off .......................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Concrete block............................................................................................................................................................ 19
2.3.1 Design model ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Deformation stiffness ............................................................................................................ 19
2.4 Welds ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.1 Direct connection of plates ................................................................................................... 20
2.4.2 Weld with plastic redistribution of stress.............................................................................. 21
2.4.3 Steel material and lamellar tearing ....................................................................................... 21
2.5 Point of applied shear loads ................................................................................................................................. 22
2.6 National Annexes of the Eurocode considered in design ......................................................................... 22
2.7 CBFEM application in case of seismic design ................................................................................................ 23
3 CBFEM design: Verification of components according to Eurocode ................................................... 25
3.1 Anchor verifications................................................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.1 Static load combinations ....................................................................................................... 25
3.1.2 Seismic load combinations .................................................................................................... 26
Hilti Aktiengesellschaft
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein
Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com
Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
1
E @hilti.com
D
3.2 Base plate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

3.3 Profile............................................................................................................................................................................. 30
3.4 Stiffeners....................................................................................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Concrete block............................................................................................................................................................ 31
3.5.1 Mesh sensitivity ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Welds ............................................................................................................................................................................. 34
3.6.1 No weld .................................................................................................................................. 34
3.6.2 Fillet welds ............................................................................................................................. 34
3.6.3 Butt welds .............................................................................................................................. 35
3.7 Deformations .............................................................................................................................................................. 36
3.8 Detailing........................................................................................................................................................................ 37
4 Advanced Base Plate design gives the flexibility to choose the right needed solution ...................... 38
4.1 Anchor design only. Go rigid ................................................................................................................................ 38
4.2 Full connection design. Go flexible including anchors, baseplate, weld, stiffeners and concrete
38
5 Proposed solution for assessing if the base plate can be considered “close to rigid” by engineering
judgement ................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Engineering judgement to define “Close to rigid” base plates behavior ............................................ 39
5.1.1 Anchor forces......................................................................................................................... 42
5.1.2 Concrete stresses................................................................................................................... 42
5.1.3 Deformation .......................................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Hilti recommendation for engineering judgement ..................................................................................... 42
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Legal disclaimers.......................................................................................................................................... 44
Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Table ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
References ................................................................................................................................................... 49
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
2
E @hilti.com
D
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
3
E @hilti.com
D
1 Introduction
Every structure needs to be connected to the ground via a foundation. These foundations are in most cases
made from concrete. To transfer the loads acting on the structure a connection of the structural steel
components (beams, columns, …) to concrete foundations is required. One of the most popular solutions
is fastening the structural steel component welded to a base plate with anchors to the foundation. All
relevant elements of this connection need to be designed for the acting loads.
Bar members are preferred by engineers when designing steel structures. However, there are many
locations on the structure where the theory of members is not valid, e.g., base plate, anchors connections,
welded joints. The structural analysis in such locations requires special attention. The behavior is non-
linear and the nonlinearities must be respected, e.g., yielding of the material of plates or profiles, base
plate and concrete block, one-sided actions of anchors, welds.
The base plate and anchors needs to be designed at the intersection between steel design, anchor design
and concrete design guidelines. The design assumptions for the full connection must not contradict each
other. Main example for steel to concrete connection is the assumed behavior of the base plate. Design
codes, e.g. EN 1993-1-8 [1], and technical literature offer engineering solution methods. Their general
feature is derivation for typical structural shapes and simple loadings. The approach is based on the
component method.
Over the last years finite element (FEM) based design revolutionized structural engineering. Nowadays
most engineers have access to powerful FEM software packages. Since the term “rigid base plate” can
mean everything and nothing there are a lot of design engineers modeling their base plates, concrete and
anchors in FEM solutions (sometimes even with a non-linear FEM software utilizing the plastic design
according to Eurocode 3). Most likely they are not aware that the anchor design guidelines are based on a
rigid base plate assumption.
This document is meant to give guidance and additional details on the Advanced Base Plate solution in
Hilti’s PROFIS Engineering software.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
4
E @hilti.com
D
1.1 Component Based Finite Element Method

Reality behavior of steel to concrete connections cannot be solved by simple beam equations. Component
Method (CM) solves the connection as a system of interconnected items – components. The corresponding
model is built per each connection type to be able to determine forces and stresses in each component –
see the following picture.
Figure 1. Anchors modeled by springs in steel-to-concrete connection
Concrete is modelled with compression spring, anchor is modelled with tension spring, and steel is defined
with shell elements. The mechanical properties of the individual components are defined by EN 1992 for
concrete, EN 1993 for steel, and Hilti Technical Data based on laboratory tests for anchors.
Each component’s resistance is checked separately using corresponding equations from the code (more
information given later in this document).
The method used by PROFIS Engineering to simulate reality behavior of base plate is the Component Based
Finite Element Model (CBFEM) which is:
- General enough to be usable for most of connections in engineering practice.
- Simple and fast enough in daily practice to provide results in a time comparable to current
methods and tools.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
5
E @hilti.com
D
- Comprehensive enough to provide structural engineer clear information about connections

behavior, stress, strain and reserves of individual components and about overall safety and
reliability.
The CBFEM is based on the idea that most of the verified and very useful parts of CM should be kept. The
weak point of CM – its generality when analyzing stresses of individual components – was replaced by
modeling and analysis using Finite Element Method (FEM). The connection is divided into main
components: profile, stiffeners, welds, plate, concrete and anchors.
This method has been proved by a verification and validation process of benchmark cases, both numerical
and experimental, source [2].
1.2 Rigid base plates: problems when designing base plates today
Rigid base plate assumptions from ETAG/EN/ACI guidelines are usually not top of mind for engineers –
however anchor guidelines are explicitly valid for rigid base plates only.
There is no clear definition available when a base plate can be considered rigid.
The current design software gives a solution to the load distribution on the anchors, but the assumptions
behind these calculations are not transparent at all, giving a black box feeling.
The main influencing effects of non-rigid base plate:
- Reduction of inner lever arm. In case the base plate cannot be considered rigid the inner lever arm
between resulting tension and resulting compression decreases. Limiting case to consider is a very
thin plate where the center of compression will be underneath the compressed flange of the I-
profile. A reduction in inner lever arm will lead to an increase in anchor forces.
Figure 2. Reduction of inner lever arm for non-rigid base plates

9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
6
E @hilti.com
D
- Prying effects. For non-rigid base plates with certain geometries prying forces can be observed.
These forces will increase the anchor forces coming from the acting loading (tension or bending
moments).
Figure 3. Increase of anchor forces due to prying effects
- Different load distribution in anchor groups. In case of different distances of fasteners to the
profile and non-rigid base plates the load distribution between the single anchors will be different,
e.g. in a 3x3 anchor arrangement the center anchor will get much more load than the outer ones
in case the base plate is non-rigid.
Figure 4. Increase of anchor forces due to different load distribution for non-rigid base plates
- Different concrete stress distribution. In case of non-rigid base plate, the compression stress will
be concentrated underneath the profile. This will lead to higher concrete stresses.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
7
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 5. Different concrete stress distribution
- SLS considerations. For cantilever beams a non-rigid base plate will create more displacement
because there is more rotation in the base plate.
Figure 6. Displacement of cantilever beam in case of rigid and non-rigid base plate
Depending on the loading and the geometry, one or more of these effects will apply and will change the
anchor forces in the connection. See the next example which comperes rigid and flexible base plate.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
8
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 7. Example compering rigid vs flexible
In this example the reduction of the lever arm and prying forces lead to higher anchor forces. This is not a
theoretical approach – also in physical tests this behavior is being observed.
1.3 Advance base plate design in PROFIS Engineering

After observing the lack of detail in the steel-to-concrete connections, alternative methods have been
developed with more accurate results and closer to reality. In the next figure, it is shown the different
methods to calculate.
Figure 8. Base plate design options for determination of the load distribution to the anchors
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
9
E @hilti.com
D
1.3.1 Rigid
PROFIS Anchor and PROFIS Engineering with selection of rigid derive the anchor forces acting on individual
fasteners from an applied load. The assumptions for the rigid design options based on the current anchor
design guidelines ( [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]) are:
- No deformation of the plate (plane surfaces remain plane).

- Strains are distributed linearly through the cross-section of the baseplate (corresponding to the
“Bernoulli Hypothesis” in reinforced concrete).
- Relevant mechanical properties for design are fastener cross-section (𝐴𝑠 ) and fastener modulus
of elasticity (𝐸𝑠 ).
- Stiffness of the concrete is characterized by its modulus of elasticity.
Figure 9. Rigid base plate behavior
In the first step (1 in Figure 10 below), the rigid base plate method calculates the resultant anchor forces
and concrete stresses, based on the rigid assumptions. Then (step 2 in Figure 10 below), it turns them into
loading vectors and apply these to the base plate, to determine the plate moments. From the plate
moments the thickness is being calculated using the yield strength of the base plate (step 3 in Figure 10
below)
At the end, the user is responsible to check if the assumption of a rigid base plate was met (step 4 in Figure
10 below). Unfortunately, this step is not done properly all the time.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
10
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 10. Steps taken in the rigid design
1.3.2 Flexible
The real behavior of base plates may be rigid or non-rigid. Although, the anchor codes require the base
plate to be rigid.
Illustrated below are two limit examples of a plate with no deformations (rigid), and a case with
deformations (non-rigid). However, there is currently no clear definition of a rigid base plate.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
11
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 11. Two examples comparing non- rigid base plate
In a real behavior of a base plate, all the components geometry and mechanical properties influence the
load distribution (profile, welds, stiffeners, plate, anchors and concrete).
Then Flexible design based in component method, according to component method considers the full
connection design is explained in the flowing chapters.
Also, PROFIS helps users solve the rigid base plate, by checking how close to a rigid situation their design
is.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
12
E @hilti.com
D
2 Flexible design: CBFEM components

FEM is a general method commonly used for structural analysis. Usage of FEM for modeling of connections
of any shapes seems to be ideal (Virdi 1999 [9]).
An elastic-plastic analysis is required, as the steel ordinarily yields in the structure. In fact, the results of
the linear analysis are useless for connection design when high loads are applied.
FEM models are used for research purposes of connection behavior, which usually apply spatial elements
and measured values of material properties.
Figure 12. FEM model of a connection for research. It uses spatial 3D elements for both plates and anchors
The fasteners – anchors and welds – are the most difficult in the point of view of the analysis model.
Modeling of such elements in general FEM programs is difficult because the programs do not offer
required properties. Thus, special FEM components had to be developed to model the welds and anchors
behavior in the connection.
In the case of connections, the geometrically nonlinear analysis is not necessary unless plates are very
slender. Plate slenderness can be determined by eigenvalue (buckling) analysis. The geometrically
nonlinear analysis is not implemented in the software.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
13
E @hilti.com
D
2.1 Material model for steel

The most common material diagrams which are used in finite element modeling of structural steel are the
ideal plastic or elastic model with strain hardening and the true stress-strain diagram.
The plates in Hilti PROFIS Engineering are modeled with elastic-plastic material with a nominal yielding
plateau slope according to EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.6. The material behavior is based on von Mises
yield criterion. It is assumed to be elastic before reaching the yield strength, fy.
The ultimate limit state criterion for regions not susceptible to buckling is reaching the limiting value of
the principal membrane strain. The value of 5% is recommended EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note
1.
Figure 13. Material diagrams of steel in numerical models
The limit value of plastic strain is often discussed. In fact, the ultimate load has low sensitivity to the limit
value of plastic strain when the ideal plastic model is used, [11].
2.1.1 Plate model
Shell elements are recommended for modeling of plates in FEA of structural connection. Four-node
quadrangle shell elements with nodes at its corners are applied. Six degrees of freedom are considered in
each node: 3 translations (ux , uy , uz ) and 3 rotations (φx , φy , φz ).
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
14
E @hilti.com
D
Rotations perpendicular to the plane of the element are considered. Complete 3D formulation of the
element is provided. The out-of-plane shear deformations are considered in the formulation of the flexural
behavior of an element based on Mindlin hypothesis. The MITC4 elements are applied, see Dvorkin (1984)
[12]. The shell is divided into five integration layers through thickness of the plate at each integration point
and plastic behavior is analyzed in each point. It is called Gauss-Lobatto integration. The nonlinear elastic-
plastic stage of material is analyzed in each layer based on the known strains.
2.1.2 Mesh convergence
There are some criteria for the mesh generation in the connection model. The sensitivity analysis
considering mesh discretization should be performed by the user for complicated geometries. In general,
larger mesh size leads to faster calculation time but less accurate results, smaller mesh size lead to slower
calculation but higher accuracy in results.
All plates of a steel-to-concrete connection have a common division into elements. The size of generated
finite elements is limited. The minimal element size is set to 10 mm and the maximal element size to 50
mm (can be changed by the user in advanced settings). Meshes on flanges and webs are independent of
each other. The default number of finite elements is set to 8 elements to the large profile dimension, as
shown in the following figure. The user can modify the default values in advanced settings, [11].
Figure 14. The mesh on a column and baseplate with constraints between the web and the flange
The relation between the profile mesh and the plate mesh is defined as follows:
𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 2 ∙ 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
15
E @hilti.com
D
Then, default finite element size is set to 16 elements as shown in the figure.
Figure 15. The mesh on a baseplate with 16 elements along its width
The following example of a concrete-to-base plate connection shows the influence of mesh size on the
base plate stress. It is loaded by a bending moment as shown in the following figure, the number of the
finite elements along the cross-section height varies from 8 to 40 (leading to a division of the larger plate
size by a factor from 16 to 80) and the results are compared. It is recommended to subdivide the base
plate length into 16 elements (highlighted in red in the next chart) as smaller elements only slow down the
calculation but don’t improve accuracy. It is the responsibility of the user to define the mesh size for the
application at hand.
Figure 16. Influence of mesh size of base plate stress
2.2 Anchors
Anchor material properties are based on experimental Hilti research for the product assessments. The
anchor stiffness is a product specific characteristic which differs depending on the selected product,
loading conditions, diameter, material and embedment depth.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
16
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 17. Schematic load displacement
2.2.1 Anchors with stand-off
The CBFEM model described in this document is suitable for fastenings with a base plate on concrete and
with stand-off in case of grouting under the plate. The grout should have at least the same resistance as
the concrete base material.
It is assumed that the grout can resist the compressive stress while tensile stress is transmitted to the
anchors. The internal load distribution is determined by finite element model.
Figure 18. Anchors with stand-off with grouting
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
17
E @hilti.com
D
PROFIS users must select, in this case, standoff with grout.
If the compressive strength of the grout is smaller than the concrete under it, then PROFIS conservatively
assumes that the grout cannot transmit compression forces into the concrete.
Figure 19: Selection of standoff with grout
The anchor resistance verifications produced by PROFIS Engineering consider increase of shear load due
to the lever arm of the shear load, as per the calculation example below.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
18
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 20: Example of steel shear resistance of Hilti Anchor with lever arm
2.3 Concrete block

2.3.1 Design model
In CBFEM, it is convenient to simplify the concrete block as 2D contact elements. The connection between
the concrete and the base plate resists in compression only. Compression is transferred via Winkler-
Pasternak subsoil model which represents deformations of the concrete block. The tension force between
the base plate and concrete block is carried by the anchor bolts, [11].
2.3.2 Deformation stiffness
The stiffness of the concrete block may be predicted for the design of column bases as an elastic
hemisphere. A Winkler-Pasternak subsoil model is commonly used for a simplified calculation of
foundations. The stiffness of subsoil is determined using modulus of elasticity of concrete and the effective
height of a subsoil as, [11]:
𝐸𝑐 1
𝑘= ( + 𝑎4 )
ℎ
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑎 + 𝑎3
(𝑎1 + 𝜐)√ 2
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓
where:
• 𝑘 – stiffness of concrete subsoil in compression

9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
19
E @hilti.com
D
• 𝐸𝑐 – modulus of elasticity of concrete

• 𝜐 – Poisson's coefficient of the concrete block
• 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 – effective area in compression
• 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 10 𝑚2 – reference area
• 𝑑 – smaller side of rectangular base plate
• 𝑎1 = 1.65; 𝑎2 = 0.5; 𝑎3 = 0.3; 𝑎4 = 1.0 – coefficients
SI units must be used in the formula, the resulting unit is N/m3.
2.4 Welds
Several options how to treat welds in numerical models exist. It is possible to use different mesh
descriptions, different kinetic and kinematic variables and constitutive models. The different types of
geometric 2D and 3D models and thereby finite elements with their applicability for different accuracy
levels are generally used. Most often used material model is the common rate-independent plasticity
model based on von Mises yield criterion. Two approaches which are used for welds are described, [11].
2.4.1 Direct connection of plates
This first option of weld model between plates is rigid connection by links between meshes of connected
plates. The connection is called multi point constraint (MPC) and relates the finite element nodes of one
plate edge to another plate. The finite element nodes are not connected directly. The advantage of this
approach is the ability to connect meshes with different densities. The constraint allows to model midline
surface of the connected plates with the offset, which respects the real plate thickness. This type of
connection is used for full penetration butt welds, [11].
Figure 21. Constraint between weld element and mesh nodes, source [11]
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
20
E @hilti.com
D
2.4.2 Weld with plastic redistribution of stress
The load distribution in weld is derived from the MPC, so the stresses are calculated in the throat section.
This is important for the stress distribution in plate under the weld and for modelling of T-stubs. This model
does not respect the stiffness of the weld and the stress distribution is conservative. Stress peaks, which
appear at the end of plate edges, in corners and rounding, govern the resistance along the whole length
of the weld. To express the weld behaviour an improved weld model is applied. A special elastoplastic
element is added between the plates. The element respects the weld throat thickness, position and
orientation. The equivalent weld solid is inserted with the corresponding weld dimensions. The nonlinear
material analysis is applied and elastoplastic behaviour in equivalent weld solid is considered. [11].
2.4.3 Steel material and lamellar tearing
PROFIS Engineering does the connection verification in terms of design. Lamellar tearing is related to the
choice of the structural steel materials – depending on the weld, a higher ‘Z’ value may be needed for the
involved components (profile, plate and stiffeners).
The consideration of the steel Z-value to prevent lamellar tearing, is not determined by PROFIS
Engineering.
Users can input yield strength and ultimate strength of the main steel, from other structural steel
information like ‘Z’. To fully define the features of the steel more information would be needed, e.g. next
image.
Figure 22. Designation of the steel grade according to EN 10025 (2004). Source: The right choice of steel [13]
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
21
E @hilti.com
D
2.5 Point of applied shear loads

The shear load at the base plate is transferred to the anchors according to EN1992-4 section 6.2.2.3.
Fastenings are considered to act without lever arm, if all conditions below are satisfied:
a) The fixture is made from steel and is in contact with the fastener over a length of 0.5𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑥 .
b) Using a levelling mortar with thickness 𝑡𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 ≤ 0.5𝑑 under at least the full dimensions of the
fixture on a rough concrete surface as an intermediate layer. The strength of the mortar shall be
that of the base concrete, but not less than 30N/mm2.
When the above is not satisfied, then the shear force on the fastenings is assumed to act with lever arm.
The considered point of applied load for shear with lever arm is the center of the plate.
Figure 23: Point of applied load for shear with lever arm
2.6 National Annexes of the Eurocode considered in design

The national annexes of EC3 & EC2 affect the advance base plate (ABP) default values for 𝛾𝑀0 , 𝛾𝑀1 , 𝛾𝑀2
and concrete factor 𝛼𝑐𝑐 .
Most countries in Europe have published a National Annex which provides guidance to engineers regarding
which safety factors should be used for design. The default values in PROFIS Engineering are according to
the national annex for each region used in design.
However, the user can also edit these values in the advanced settings (check the image below).
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
22
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 24. Advanced settings to change safety factors
2.7 CBFEM application in case of seismic design

Earthquake resistance steel buildings shall be designed in accordance with one of the following dissipative
behavior:
• Low dissipative behavior (concept a)

• Medium or high dissipative behavior (concept b)
Table 1: requirements on cross sectional class of dissipative elements depending on ductility class (medium and high) and
reference to behavior factor q (Table 6.3, EN1998-1)
Design concept Structural ductility Range of reference values for

class behavior factor q
Concept a) DCL ≤ 1.5-2
Low dissipative seismic behavior
Concept b) Dissipative seismic DCM ≤4
behavior DCH Only limited by values of EN1998
table 6.2
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
23
E @hilti.com
D
In PROFIS Engineering Load Type Seismic should be selected to prove earthquake load combinations.
Figure 25: Selection of seismic load combinations
The value of q should be determined by the user outside of PROFIS. Based on the value of q and Table 1,
elastic or capacity design should be selected.
Figure 26: Capacity and elastic design
The CBFEM design described in this document is applicable for concept a), and the resistance of the
members and of the connections should be evaluated in accordance with EN 1993 without any additional
requirements (section 6.1.2(4) of EN 1998-1).
In this case, PROFIS Engineering proceeds to connection design for seismic load combinations, as described
below.
Table 2: CBFEM details in case of seismic (DCL, q<1.5-2)
Component Load distribution definition Resistance definition

Steel 2.1 Material model for steel 3.3 Profile
3.2 Base plate
3.4 Stiffeners
Anchors 2.2 Anchors 3.1 Anchor verifications
Concrete block 2.3 Concrete block 3.5 Concrete block
Welds 2.4 Welds 3.6 Welds
CBFEM application in case of seismic design has been investigated and assessed by Hilti, [14].
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
24
E @hilti.com
D
3 CBFEM design: Verification of components according to Eurocode

CBFEM method combines advantages of general Finite Element Method (FEM) and Component Method
(CM) mentioned in EN1993-1-8 [1]. The stresses and internal forces derived from the CBFEM model are
used in checks of all components. Individual components are checked according to Eurocode EN 1993-1-8
[1]. In general, all steel materials must be larger than 4mm, which is a limit to fully comply with EN1993-
1-1 [15] & EN1993-1-8 [1].
PROFIS determines the design at the level of the connection. Critical sections for design, i.e. buckling, are
not determined in the verification of the connection, precisely because PROFIS would need to know more
about the surrounding structure, and not only the node.
3.1 Anchor verifications
3.1.1 Static load combinations
The user can choose to perform anchor design per following European design codes:
• Eurocode 2-4.
• ETAG 001 Annex C.
• EOTA TR029.
• fib design bulletin 58.
Verifications are performed according to user selected guideline for steel and concrete failure modes.
Table 3. Required verifications for headed and post-installed fasteners in tension
Failure mode Single fastener Group of fasteners

Most loaded fastener group
1 Steel failure of 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑠 ℎ
𝑁 𝑅𝑘,𝑠
𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠 =
fastener 𝛾𝑀𝑠 𝛾𝑀𝑠
2 Concrete cone 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑐 𝑔 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑠
𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠 =
failure 𝛾𝑀𝑐 𝛾𝑀𝑠
3 Pull-out failure 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑝 ℎ
𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑝
𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑝 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑝 =
of fastener 𝛾𝑀𝑝 𝛾𝑀𝑝
4 Combined pull- 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑝 𝑔 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑝
𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑝 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑝 =
out and 𝛾𝑀𝑝 𝛾𝑀𝑝
concrete failure
5 Concrete 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑠𝑝 𝑔 𝑁𝑅𝑘,𝑠𝑝
𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠𝑝 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑠𝑝 =
splitting failure 𝛾𝑀𝑠𝑝 𝛾𝑀𝑠𝑝
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
25
E @hilti.com
D
Table 4. Required verifications for headed and post-installed fasteners in shear
Failure mode Single fastener Group of fasteners

Most loaded fastener group
1 Steel failure of 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑠 ℎ
𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑠
𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠 =
fastener w/o lever 𝛾𝑀𝑠 𝛾𝑀𝑠
arm
2 Steel failure of 𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠,𝑀 ℎ
𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠,𝑀
fastener w/ lever 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑠,𝑀 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑠,𝑀
= =
arm 𝛾𝑀𝑠 𝛾𝑀𝑠
3 Concrete pry-out 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑐𝑝 𝑔 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑐𝑝
𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑝 = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑝 =
failure 𝛾𝑀𝑐 𝛾𝑀𝑐
4 Concrete edge 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑐 𝑔 𝑉𝑅𝑘,𝑐
𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 =
failure 𝛾𝑀𝑐 𝛾𝑀𝑐
3.1.2 Seismic load combinations
Per EN1992-4/EOTA TR045, the design resistance of a fastening in case of seismic, shall be performed per
failure mode, according to:
𝑅𝑘,𝑒𝑞
𝑅𝑑,𝑒𝑞 =
𝛾𝑀,𝑒𝑞
Where:
0
𝑅𝑘,𝑒𝑞 = 𝛼𝑔𝑎𝑝 𝛼𝑒𝑞 𝑅𝑘,𝑒𝑞
𝛾𝑀,𝑒𝑞 is safety factors related to seismic failure mode
And:
0
𝑅𝑘,𝑒𝑞 is the basic characteristic resistance for a given failure mode
𝛼𝑔𝑎𝑝 is defined in product ETA
𝛼𝑒𝑞 is defined in the tables below
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
26
E @hilti.com
D
Table 5: Reduction factors for 𝛼𝑒𝑞 in tension, per EN1992-4
Failure mode Single fastener Fastener group
1 Steel failure of
fastener 1 1
2 Concrete cone
failure
Headed fastener
and undercut 1 0.85
fastener
All others 0.85 0.75
3 Pull-out failure
of fastener 1 0.85
4 Combined pull-
out and 1 0.85
concrete failure
5 Concrete
splitting failure 1 0.85
Table 6: Reduction factors for 𝛼𝑒𝑞 in shear, per EN1992-4
Failure mode
Single fastener Fastener group
1 Steel failure of
fastener w/o lever 1 0.85
arm
2 Steel failure of
fastener w/ lever 1 0.85
arm
3 Concrete pry-out
failure
Headed fastener
and undercut 1 0.85
fastener
All others 0.85 0.75
4 Concrete edge
failure 1 0.85
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
27
E @hilti.com
D
3.2 Base plate

The resulting equivalent stress (Von Mises Stress) and plastic strain are calculated on plates as per the FEM
model defined in chapter 2.
Stress
The use of Von Mises stress is also indicated to determine the maximum stress level in the cross section.
𝜎𝐸𝑑,𝑒𝑞 ≤ 𝑓𝑦𝑑 EN 1993-1-6 [16], section 6.2
PROFIS Engineering and the EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1 allow stress slightly higher than 𝑓𝑦𝑑 ,
because the steel yielding stress level is not 100% constant. There is a very small increase of stress during
this phase.
Figure 27. Example of steel stress
Strains
Ultimate limit state criteria for plated structural elements should verify the principal membrane strains
against a limiting value of strain (𝜀).
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
28
E @hilti.com
D
𝜀 ≤ 𝜀𝑙𝑖𝑚 as per EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1
Where 𝜀𝑙𝑖𝑚 is defined by the user. PROFIS Engineering presents a default value of 𝜀𝑙𝑖𝑚 , considering a max.
value of 5% EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1.
The engineer is responsible to check the max. strain limits, and if there are any National regulations for
𝜀𝑙𝑖𝑚 in specific markets. This information would be in the NA for EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1.
Figure 28. Example plastic strain
Since the plate elements are divided into 5 layers, elastic/plastic behavior is investigated in each layer
separately. A verification of stress level and equivalent plastic strain is performed by the program- the
calculation output relates to the most critical verification for all 5 layers.
The limiting criteria is 5%- as suggested in Eurocode EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1. The
connection design does not replace the steel design for critical cross sections, which should be performed
outside of PROFIS Engineering.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
29
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 29. Equivalent stress and plastic strain
CBFEM method can provide steel stress higher than the yield strength. The reason is the slight inclination
(1) of the plastic branch of the stress-strain diagram which is used in the analysis to improve the stability
of interaction calculation.
This is not a problem in practical design. At higher loads, the equivalent plastic strain is rising and the
connection fails while exceeding the plastic strain limit.
3.3 Profile
A part of the profile is modeled to ensure that the stress distribution in the profile is “settled” in order to
be transferred to the welds. However, the software does not replace the verification on the superstructure
because is not doing any buckling or stability assessment. But is checking the stresses and strain in a certain
section of the profile.
Strains
Stress
Both PROFIS Engineering and the EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1 allow stress slightly higher than
𝑓𝑦𝑑 . This because the steel yielding stress level is not 100% constant. There is a very small increase of stress
during this phase.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
30
E @hilti.com
D
3.4 Stiffeners
Similar the plate and profile components, PROFIS Engineering checks for the stiffeners the equivalent
stress (or Von Mises stress) and plastic strain. This check does not replace the frame design which is
required for steel structures (including buckling check of the stiffeners).
Strains
Stress
PROFIS Engineering and the EN 1993-1-5 [10], App C, Part C.8 Note 1 allow stress slightly higher than 𝑓𝑦𝑑 ,
because the steel yielding stress level is not 100% constant. There is a very small increase of stress during
this phase.
3.5 Concrete block

The resistance of concrete in 3D compression is determined based on EN 1993-1-8 [1] by calculating the
design bearing strength of concrete in the connection, 𝑓𝑗𝑑 , under the effective area, 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 , of the base
plate. The design bearing strength of the joint, 𝑓𝑗𝑑 , is evaluated according to Cl. 6.2.5 in EN 1993-1-8 [1]
and Cl. 6.7 in EN 1992-1-1. The grout quality and thickness is introduced by the connection coefficient,
β𝑗𝑑 . For grout quality equal or better than the quality of the concrete block, β𝑗𝑑 = 1.0 is expected. The
effective area, 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑐𝑚 under the base plate is estimated to be of the shape of the column cross-section
increased by additional bearing width, c.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
31
E @hilti.com
D
𝑓𝑦
𝑐 = 𝑡√
3𝑓𝑖 𝛾𝑀0
where 𝑡 is the thickness of the base plate, 𝑓𝑦 is the base plate yield strength and 𝛾𝑀0 is the partial safety
factor for steel.
The effective area is calculated by iteration until the difference between the additional bearing widths of
current and previous iteration |𝑐𝑖– 𝑐𝑖– 1| is less than 1 mm.
The area where the concrete is in compression is taken from results of FEA. This area in compression,
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝐹𝐸𝑀 , allows determining the position of the neutral axis.
The intersection of the area in compression, 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝐹𝐸𝑀 , and the effective area, 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑐𝑚 , allows to assess
the resistance for generally loaded column base of any column shape with any stiffeners and is labeled
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 . The average stress σ on the effective area, 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 , is determined as the compression force divided by
the effective area. Check of the component is in stresses 𝜎 ≤ 𝑓𝑗𝑑
Concrete resistance at concentrated compression:
𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑓𝑗𝑑 = 𝛽𝑗 𝑘𝑗
𝛾𝑐
Average stress under the base plate:
𝑁
𝜎=
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓
Utilization in compression [%]:

𝜎
𝑈𝑡 =
𝑓𝑗𝑑
where:
• 𝑓𝑐𝑘 – characteristic compressive concrete strength

• 𝛽𝑗 = 0.67 – factor of grout quality editable in Code setup
• 𝑘𝑗 – concentration factor
• 𝛾𝑐 – safety factor for concrete
• 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 – effective area on which the column normal force N is distributed
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
32
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 30. Contact stress in concrete
3.5.1 Mesh sensitivity
This procedure of assessing the resistance of the concrete in compression is independent on the mesh of
the base plate as can be seen in the figures bellow. It is shown in the example of concrete in compression
assessment according to EC.
Two cases were investigated: loading by pure compression of 1200 kN and loading by a combination of
compressive force 1200 kN and bending moment 90 kN.
Figure 31. Influence of number of elements on prediction of resistance of concrete in compression in case of pure compression
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
33
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 32. The influence of number of elements on prediction of resistance of concrete in compression in case of compression and
bending
3.6 Welds
Three welding options are available, considering weld materials as per EN 1991-1 [17]. User may select to
model the connection between profile / stiffeners and plate.
3.6.1 No weld
If the steel components are not welded together, then it is assumed that there is no transfer of loads
between them. Thus, the weld is not modelled – the elements don’t share nodes.
3.6.2 Fillet welds
All loads are transferred via the weld. The fillet weld is modelled as a special weld element, which has an
equivalent cross section area as the weld.
Design resistance
The plastic strain in weld is limited to 5% as in the plate (EN1993-1-5 [10], App. C, Par. C.8, Note 1). The
stress in the throat section of a fillet weld is determined according to EN 1993-1-8 [1], Cl. 4.5.3. using the
directional method. Stresses are calculated from the stresses in weld element. Bending moment around
the weld longitudinal axis is not considered.
𝜎𝜔,𝐸𝑑 = √𝜎 2 ⟘ + 3(𝜏 2 ⟘ + 𝜏 2 ⃦ )
𝑓𝑢
𝜎𝜔,𝑅𝑑 =
𝛽𝜔 𝛾𝑀2
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
34
E @hilti.com
D
Weld utilization
𝜎𝜔,𝐸𝑑 𝜎⟘
𝑈𝑡 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 { , }
𝜎𝜔,𝑅𝑑 0.9𝑓𝑢 /𝛾𝑀2
where:
• 𝛽𝜔 – correlation factor (EN 1993-1-8 [1] – Table 4.1)

• 𝑓𝑢 – ultimate strength, chosen as the lower of the two connected base materials
• 𝛾𝑀2 – safety factor (EN 1993-1-8 [1]; editable in Code setup)
The plastic strain in weld is limited to 5% as in the plate EN1993-1-5 [10], App. C, Par. C.8, Note 1. The
stress in the throat section of a fillet weld is determined according to EN 1993-1-8 [1]. Stresses are
calculated from the stresses in weld element. Bending moment around the weld longitudinal axis is not
considered.
Figure 33. Decomposition of weld loads, source [11]
All values required for check are printed in tables. 𝑈𝑡 is the utilization of the most stressed element. Since
plastic redistribution of stress in weld is used, it is the decisive utilization. 𝑈𝑡𝑐 provides information about
utilization along the weld length. It is the ratio of actual stress at all elements of the weld to the design
resistance of the stress of the whole length of the weld, [11].
3.6.3 Butt welds
User can select butt welds, which correspond to full penetration.
According to Eurocode 3-1-8, section 4.7.1 for full penetration butt welds the design is implicitly verified
by the resistance of the weakest element in the connection.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
35
E @hilti.com
D
3.7 Deformations
PROFIS Engineering calculates and provides the deformations in every point of the connection including
the location of the anchors. Since the anchors are joined with the plate, the deformation on the plate is
the same as the deformation on the anchors.
A check on deformations can be done by including SLS loads and verifying the displacements. If a user
wants to calculate the deformations under the SLS load combination, it’s a question of inputting the SLS
load combination into PROFIS Engineering and check these displacements.
Figure 34. Deformation
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
36
E @hilti.com
D
3.8 Detailing
Detailing checks of minimum distance between anchors are performed always.
Hilti Anchor ETAs prescribe dimensions from:
• Minimum distance between anchors

• Minimum distance between anchors and concrete edge
These options may not be changed by the user. The minimum distances guarantee that the Hilti Anchor is
able to resist the loads, including concrete related failure modes (e.g. concrete edge failure).
Program settings prescribe dimensions from:
• Minimum distance between anchor and edge of plate

• Minimum distance between anchor and profile
The default values for min. end distance are compliant with EN 1993-1-8 [1], table 3.3.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
37
E @hilti.com
D
4 Advanced Base Plate design gives the flexibility to choose the right
needed solution
Depending on what design would want to be calculated, advance base plate module gives the freedom to
choose the right method.
4.1 Anchor design only. Go rigid
Go rigid for anchor design saving time on calculation with improvements such as structure software
interfaces, usability, etc. But you need to ensure that the base plate is behaving like a rigid plate.
4.2 Full connection design. Go flexible including anchors, baseplate, weld, stiffeners and
concrete
There are three options for a full connection design:
a) Go flexible with verified rigidity of base plate, in case of wanting to apply Eurocode rules strictly.
This is the right option for taking the “guessing” out of the base plate solution. But it might get
either a negligible displacement of the base plate compared the anchors displacement. Or go with
advance base plate getting 0% deviation, and it might lead to uneconomical base plate thicknesses.
b) Go flexible and optimize base plate with max. rigidity deviation of 10%. Improve the connection
design with engineering judgement backed by extensive testing, satisfying the verification
engineer with a comprehensive design report for the entire connection.
c) Go Flexible and optimize base plate according to the engineer own judgment. With one click do
complete connection design and iterate quickly to find the most suitable solution. Considering that
anchor design formulas are only valid if the base plate can be considered rigid.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
38
E @hilti.com
D
5 Proposed solution for assessing if the base plate can be considered

“close to rigid” by engineering judgement
Rigid base plate is a theoretical approach. In real-life no member is fully rigid - if you load it enough the
base plate will deform. “Close to rigid” base plates behave similar than rigid base plates acknowledging
the real behavior. If the behavior is very similar, the anchor design guidelines can be applied by engineering
judgement.
Figure 35. Definition of "Close to rigid" base plates
5.1 Engineering judgement to define “Close to rigid” base plates behavior

Whereas no check of the actual base plate rigidity was previously carried out, this is now performed at the
end of the calculation process (Figure 36. Rigid and Flexible comparison window). The anchor loads
calculated according to the elasticity theory are compared with the anchor loads taking account of
equilibrium and compatibility conditions on the basis of realistic assumptions of the load-displacement
behavior and the stress-strain curves of the individual components, and assuming a rigid base plate. By
comparing the anchor loads of both methods, the gap between theory (rigid base plate) and practice
within a software can be determined.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
39
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 36. Rigid and Flexible comparison window
Figure 37. Increase of anchor forces associated with a flexible baseplate, from [18], shows experimentally
determined mean failure loads of anchor groups (𝑁𝑢,𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 ) related to the calculated failure load taking into
account the elasticity theory (𝑁𝑢,𝐸−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 ) as a function of highest loaded anchor of the group based on
non-linear assumptions, related to the calculated value of the most loaded anchor, determined on the
basis of the elasticity theory. These tests consider anchor groups with four and nine anchors under uniaxial
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
40
E @hilti.com
D
and biaxial bending in non-cracked concrete. In the tests, cast-in headed studs and post-installed anchors
were used.
Figure 37 was chosen in order to estimate to what extent a deviation of the most heavily loaded anchor of
a group from the calculation according to the elasticity theory affects the overall group’s load capacity.
Based on the available test values, with a deviation of the anchor loads of the most loaded anchor of a
group of approx. 10% - 15% – between rigid and realistic baseplate assumptions – the mean failure load
of the group fixture corresponds to the mean group failure load calculated according to the elasticity
theory. This means that in the case of an approx. 10% - 15% deviation in the anchor loads between the
rigid plate and the flexible plate, no negative influence on the load bearing capacity could be observed in
the tests.
The comparison of the rigid and the realistic base plate in combination with the above investigations
should help the planning engineer to make an assessment of the existing base plate thickness that does
not contradict the applicable guidelines.
Figure 37. Increase of anchor forces associated with a flexible baseplate
If there are other engineering judgement considerations to go beyond the 10% value proposed here,
please apply your own engineering judgement.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
41
E @hilti.com
D
Looking at the influencing parameters of non-rigid base plates (see chapter 1.3), the following parameters
are important to define if a base plate can be considered “close to rigid”.
5.1.1 Anchor forces
The following three effects will lead to an increase in anchor forces:
- Reduction of inner lever arm, Figure 2.

- Prying effects, Figure 3.
- Different load distribution in anchor groups, Figure 4.
If the anchor forces are similar to the rigid base plate results one can assume that the plate behaves in a
very similar compared to a rigid plate – in this case the plate can be considered “close to rigid”.
Some literature on this point to be able to take an engineering judgement are: Mallée/Burkhardt [19],
Fichtner [20].
The anchor force results of a rigid vs non-rigid base plate will be accepted up to engineering judgement by
the engineer who is designing.
5.1.2 Concrete stresses
EN 1993-1-8 [1] defines how concrete stresses should be evaluated based on the T-stub model, which is
also valid for non-rigid base plates. Therefore, a check of the concrete stresses coming from our “close to
rigid” FEM calculation is sufficient.
5.1.3 Deformation
It’s up to the engineer and/or the owner to decide which deformation in serviceability limit state will be
acceptable.
5.2 Hilti recommendation for engineering judgement

Based on the information given above the engineer needs to decide if the base plate can be considered
“close to rigid” on a case by case basis to ensure that the scope of the anchor design guidelines is at least
met by engineering judgement.
Due to the fact there is no general rule applicable for all cases, Hilti is not giving a recommendation how
much deviation from the rigid base plate can be accepted.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
42
E @hilti.com
D
6 Conclusion
The assumptions used for the design are the responsibility of the engineer. Different limitations in the
anchor and structural steel design guidelines require to introduce the “close to rigid” base plate to have a
safe solution for anchor design. This base plate will behave very similar to the rigid base plate assumption
prescribed in the anchor design guidelines by engineering judgement.
This technical background document shows the main influencing factors for the engineer to judge if his
base plate is in accordance with the scope of the anchor design guidelines. The summarized literature
should help the engineer to take this engineering judgement call.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
43
E @hilti.com
D
Legal disclaimers
When using the Services, the Customer must according to section 6 of the Agreement to the fullest
comply with the following Regulations and solely is responsible to implement the required mitigation
steps using its best efforts to avoid any potential incorrect usage:
Generally applicable for all Services:
Any and all information and data contained in the Services concern solely the use of Hilti products
and are based on the principles, formulas and security regulations in accordance with Hilti's
technical directions and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc., that must strictly
complied with. The Hilti product portfolio to be used in connection with the Services may vary
from country to country. All figures contained in the Services are average figures, and therefore,
use-specific tests are to be conducted prior to using the relevant Hilti product. The results of the
calculations carried out by means of the Services are based essentially on the data Customer puts
in. Therefore, Customer bears the sole responsibility for the absence of errors, the completeness
and the relevance of the data to be put in by Customer. Moreover, Customer bears sole
responsibility for having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an expert,
particularly with regard to compliance with applicable norms and permits, prior to using them for
Customer`s specific facility. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret norms and permits
without any guarantee as to the absence of errors, the correctness and the relevance of the
results or suitability for a specific application. Customer must take all necessary and reasonable
steps to prevent or limit damage caused by the Services. All calculation results and designs are
recommendations and need to be confirmed with a professional designer and/or structural
engineers to ensure that the calculation results and designs are suitable and adequate for
Customer`s specific jurisdiction and project requirements.
Furthermore, the section “WARNINGS” in each of the reports being generated with the Services
form an integral part of the calculation assumption. Customer needs to comply with those to the
strictest and needs to ensure that they are being reviewed by an appropriate expert prior to their
use.
Advance Baseplate Design:
- Use of Advance Baseplate Design with PROFIS Engineering- Desktop Application requires an
active internet connection
- Realistic baseplate/ stresses/ strains/ deformation/ design proofs as per EN1993
- Design of weld as per EN1993-1-8
- Design of stiffeners as per EN1993
- Concrete bearing capacity check as per EN1992
- Anchor design as per ETAG/ TR 029
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
44
E @hilti.com
D
- Anchor stiffness data is based on extensive tests conducted by Hilti and Hilti engineering
judgement
- By using the realistic calculation functionality of PROFIS Engineering you may act outside the
applicable design codes and your specified base plate may not behave rigidly. Please, have the
results validated by a professional designer and/or structural engineer to ensure suitability and
adequacy for your specific jurisdiction and project requirements.
Legal Notice:
Please note, this manual, including its individual chapters, only serves for information purposes.
Hilti Corporation reserves the right at any time and without notice to change the content described
herein. Hilti Corporation and/or any other company of the Hilti-group shall have no warranty obligation
or liability of any kind with respect to the content of this manual, except as explicitly set forth and
approved in the individual subscription agreement being applicable to the respective Hilti Cloud Service.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
45
E @hilti.com
D
Figures
Figure 1. Anchors modeled by springs in steel-to-concrete connection....................................................... 5
Figure 2. Reduction of inner lever arm for non-rigid base plates ................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Increase of anchor forces due to prying effects ............................................................................. 7
Figure 4. Increase of anchor forces due to different load distribution for non-rigid base plates................. 7
Figure 5. Different concrete stress distribution ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 6. Displacement of cantilever beam in case of rigid and non-rigid base plate .................................. 8
Figure 7. Example compering rigid vs flexible ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 8. Base plate design options for determination of the load distribution to the anchors .................. 9
Figure 9. Rigid base plate behavior ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 10. Steps taken in the rigid design ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 11. Two examples comparing non- rigid base plate......................................................................... 12
Figure 12. FEM model of a connection for research. It uses spatial 3D elements for both plates and
anchors ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 13. Material diagrams of steel in numerical models ........................................................................ 14
Figure 14. The mesh on a column and baseplate with constraints between the web and the flange ....... 15
Figure 15. The mesh on a baseplate with 16 elements along its width ...................................................... 16
Figure 16. Influence of mesh size of base plate stress ................................................................................ 16
Figure 17. Schematic load displacement ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 18. Anchors with stand-off with grouting ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 19: Selection of standoff with grout................................................................................................. 18
Figure 20: Example of steel shear resistance of Hilti Anchor with lever arm ............................................. 19
Figure 21. Constraint between weld element and mesh nodes, source [11] ............................................. 20
Figure 22. Designation of the steel grade according to EN 10025 (2004). Source: The right choice of steel
[13] .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 23: Point of applied load for shear with lever arm .......................................................................... 22
Figure 24. Advanced settings to change safety factors ............................................................................... 23
Figure 25: Selection of seismic load combinations ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 26: Capacity and elastic design ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 27. Example of steel stress ............................................................................................................... 28
Figure 28. Example plastic strain ................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 29. Equivalent stress and plastic strain ............................................................................................ 30
Figure 30. Contact stress in concrete .......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 31. Influence of number of elements on prediction of resistance of concrete in compression in
case of pure compression ........................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 32. The influence of number of elements on prediction of resistance of concrete in compression in
case of compression and bending ............................................................................................................... 34
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
46
E @hilti.com
D
Figure 33. Decomposition of weld loads, source [11] ................................................................................. 35

Figure 34. Deformation ............................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 35. Definition of "Close to rigid" base plates ................................................................................... 39
Figure 36. Rigid and Flexible comparison window ...................................................................................... 40
Figure 37. Increase of anchor forces associated with a flexible baseplate ................................................. 41
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
47
E @hilti.com
D
Table
Table 1: requirements on cross sectional class of dissipative elements depending on ductility class
(medium and high) and reference to behavior factor q (Table 6.3, EN1998-1).......................................... 23
Table 2: CBFEM details in case of seismic (DCL, q<1.5-2) ........................................................................... 24
Table 3. Required verifications for headed and post-installed fasteners in tension .................................. 25
Table 4. Required verifications for headed and post-installed fasteners in shear ..................................... 26
Table 5: Reduction factors for 𝛼𝑒𝑞 in tension, per EN1992-4 .................................................................... 27
Table 6: Reduction factors for 𝛼𝑒𝑞 in shear, per EN1992-4........................................................................ 27
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
48
E @hilti.com
D
References
[1] Technical Commitee CEN/TC 250, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints,
2009.
[2] Wald F.m Sabatka L., Bajer M., Barnat J., Gödrich L., Holomek J., Kabelac J., Kocha M., Kolaja D., Kral
P., Kurejkova M., Vild M., Benchmark cases for advanced design of structural steel connections,
Prague, September, 2016.
[3] Technical Commitee CEN/TC 250, FprEN 1992-4 Design of concrete structures - Part 4: Design of
Anchorage for use in concrete, 2015.
[4] European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), ETAG 001, Annex C: Design methods for
anchorages (3rd amendment), Brussels, 2010.
[5] European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), TR 029, Brussels: EOTA, 2010.
[6] American Concrete Institute Comitee, ACI 318-11: Building code requirements for structural
concrete, 2011.
[7] American Concrete Institute Comitee, ACI 318-14: Building code requirements for structural
concrete.
[8] American Concrete Intitute Comitee, ACI 318-08: Building code requirements for structural
concrete, 2008.
[9] Numerical Simulation of Semi Rigid Connection by the Finite Element Method, Report of Working
Group 6 Numerical, Brussels Luxembourg, 1999.
[10] Technical Commitee CEN/TC 250, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-5: Desing of steel
structures, 2006.
[11] IDEA StatiCa, General theoretical background;

https://resources.ideastatica.com/Content/02_Steel/Theoretical_background/1_General.htm,
Version used 10/2018.
[12] Dvorkin E. N. and Bathe K. J., Mechanics Based Four Node Shell Element for General Nonlinear
Analysis, 1984.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
49
E @hilti.com
D
[13] Oliver Hechler, Georges Axmann & Boris Donnay, The right choice of steel - according to the
Eurocode, 2015.
[14] Hilti investigations and assessments for the use of CBFEM method under seismic loading, Schaan:
Not published, 2019.
[15] Technical Commitee, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structure - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings, 2005.
[16] Technical Commitee CEN/TC 250, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-6: Strength and
Stability of shell structures, 2009.
[17] Technical Commitee CEN/TC 250, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions -
Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, 2009.
[18] M. Fitz, J. Appl and O. Geibig, : Wirklichkeitsnahe und vollständige Bemessung von Ankerplatten
einschließlich der Befestigungsmittel – neue Bemessungssoftware auf Basis wirklichkeitsnaher
Annahmen, Stahlbau, 2018.
[19] R. Mallée and F. Burkhardt, Befestigung von Ankerplatten mit Dübeln, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
94, Heft 12, S. 502-511, Ernst & Sohn Verlag, 1999.
[20] S. Fichtner, Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten von Gruppenbefestigungen unter Berücksichtigung

der Ankerplattendicke und einer Mörtelschicht, Dissertation Universität Stuttgart, 2011.
[21] American institute of steel construction, ANSI/AISC 360-16: Specification for structural steel
buildings, 2010.
[22] American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Design Guide: Base Palte and Anchor Rod Design,
2006.
9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

T +423-234 2111 I F +423-234 2965
www.hilti.com

ÖR-Nr.: FL-1.011.557-0 I MWST-Nr.: 50 555
50

ABP Technical Background (Europe) English Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABP Technical Background (Europe) English Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Base Plate

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

3.2 Base plate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

1.1 Component Based Finite Element Method

Figure 1. Anchors modeled by springs in steel-to-concrete connection

- General enough to be usable for most of connections in engineering practice.

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

- Comprehensive enough to provide structural engineer clear information about connections

The main influencing effects of non-rigid base plate:

Figure 2. Reduction of inner lever arm for non-rigid base plates

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 3. Increase of anchor forces due to prying effects

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 5. Different concrete stress distribution

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 7. Example compering rigid vs flexible

1.3 Advance base plate design in PROFIS Engineering

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

- No deformation of the plate (plane surfaces remain plane).

Figure 9. Rigid base plate behavior

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 10. Steps taken in the rigid design

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 11. Two examples comparing non- rigid base plate

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

2 Flexible design: CBFEM components

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

2.1 Material model for steel

Figure 13. Material diagrams of steel in numerical models

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 2 ∙ 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑠ℎ 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 16. Influence of mesh size of base plate stress

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

Figure 17. Schematic load displacement

2.2.1 Anchors with stand-off

Figure 18. Anchors with stand-off with grouting

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

PROFIS users must select, in this case, standoff with grout.

Figure 19: Selection of standoff with grout

Feldkircherstrasse 100 I Postfach 333

Rechtsform: Aktiengesellschaft I Sitz: 9494 Schaan

2.3 Concrete block

• 𝑘 – stiffness of concrete subsoil in compression